Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.2.2005. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and find no merit in this appeal.

2. The petitioner challenged the re-tender notification dated 11.10.2004 in respect of tender issued by the first respondent relating to the collection of parking fee for Madhavaram bus and truck terminal.

3. Earlier, tenders had been called and the third respondent had made the highest bid of Rs.56.27 lakhs while the petitioner's bid was only Rs.34 lakhs. Since the third respondent failed to submit eligibility certificate and since the petitioner was not willing to increase his bid, the first respondent decided to issue the re-tender notification.

4. Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that no reasons have been given in the order rejecting the petitioner's tender. He relied on section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and has contended that reasons must be given for rejecting the tender.

5. We do not accept this contention. An order rejecting tender is not a quasi judicial order nor is it even an